A MUST READ FOR ALL NEW INDIAN ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE (IAS) OFFICER EXAMINATION CANDIDATES

Tuesday, December 31, 2013

GANDHI TURNED BHAGVADGITA ON ITS HEAD TO DEBUNK TILAK AND AUROBINDO, MAKE HINDUS MASOCHIST PASSIVE INTROSPECTORS, TO CLOSE THEIR EYES TO REALITY, AND TO FIND WHEN THEY OPENED THEIR EYES THAT THEY HAD LOST THEIR LAND AND HAD NO SAY IN GOVERNANCE OF INDIA - A BRITISH AGENDA ENTRUSTED TO GANDHI WHEN INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS WAS MANUFACTURED BY THEM, THE SAGA CONTINUES IN SONIA-RAHUL- MANMOHAN SINGH POLITICS, ONLY WAY OUT IS VICTORY FOR MODI IN 2014

Modi as PM – sign of Hindu resurgence: Being anti-Modi and hatred for Modi is the essence of Gandhi’s anti-Hindu freedom struggle and anti-Hindu Nehruvian secularism. The visceral hatred and venom-laced political reaction to Modi’s unstoppable ascent is a continuation of Gandhi’s response to first Tilak, Savarkar, Aurobindo and later Sardar Patel; and Nehru’s response to Savarkar, Patel and the RSS.

To label the Generic Church-driven anti-Hindu orientation of Indian polity as ‘secular versus communal’ is to obfuscate the truth. This is war between Hindu nationalists and all anti-Hindu political mercenaries including renegade Hindus in political parties, media and academe, the Abrahamic cults and their supporters. Irrespective of how Modi and the Rest see this, for Hindu nationalists, this all out war - Modi versus the Rest is a war for survival – of Hindus and the Hindu homeland. It is not overstating a fact that every Hindu feels he has a stake in Elections 2014.

To state the obvious -

· No political party or politician can remain in electoral politics on an explicit anti-Hindu platform; but in the absence of any distinct ideology and no commitment to even minimal good governance, these need the anti-Hindu posture and the tactical and consolidated Abrahamic minority vote to remain a viable political entity

· To garner the minority vote, anti-Hindu politicians pay jizya of politics of minority-ism under two broad categories: [1] Give anti-Hindu politics a face – it was Tilak, Aurobindo and Savarkar at the turn of the twentieth century, it is the RSS and Modi now. Gandhi could publicly insult and humiliate Tilak, maliciously ignore Aurobindo, with criminal self-interest evict proclaimed Hindus KM Munshi and NB Khare from the INC and marginalize Patel in 1946 because he was the Mahatma; but for Digvijay Singh, Lalu Prasad Yadav, Mulayam Singh Yadav and other mercenaries who cannot risk being publicly anti-Hindu, it costs nothing to be anti-RSS and anti-Modi; and [2] Practice naked politics of minority-ism, but give it the fig-leaf of constitutional secularism or even better, call it Gandhi’s vision of India and never mind if in action it is nothing less than feeding the anti-Hindu monster.

From clairvoyant Arundhati Roy (she declared recently with full certainty that Modi will not become prime minister in 2014), Sonia Gandhi and Teesta Setalvad to Nitish Kumar and Naveen Patnaik, the reasons cited to hate Modi all go back to the fundamental reason why the British manufactured the INC in 1885, followed by Gandhi and his years as destructive political leader of the INC. It was Gandhi and the Indian National Congress (that Gandhi intentionally and successfully de-Hinduised), which gave away Hindu territory to the Muslim League (as plotted and executed by Imperial Britain) in 1947. A politically dispirited INC was disarmed, unmanned and weakened by the Mahatma over a period lasting three decades, an INC which had no self-conscious political commitment to anything Hindu and could therefore not stop the Muslim League from vivisecting the Hindu nation to create another Dar-ul Islam.

The country’s polity is burdened till today by Gandhi’s unrelenting political disempowerment of Hindus; the intense hatred for Modi is a Gandhian legacy where hatred is an effective mask to hide fear; fear of Modi is given the fig-leaf of dislike for Modi and “his brand of politics”. America’s USCIRF and the American Congress have already begun breast-beating in frustration.

Not all the verbose annual reports on religious freedom, terrorism and human rights by the US State Department and the USCIRF and special sessions on the Gujarat riots which designated India “country of interest” and Modi “person of interest” has deterred India’s Hindus from uniting behind Modi. “Person of interest”, “country of interest” is Americanism for individuals whom America holds guilty – from pickpockets and cattle rustlers to heads of government of target countries which were unwilling to serve American interests. The US government has once again deployed the USCIRF and the American Congress against Narendra Modi in the fond hope that Modi and his mammoth Hindu following will start shaking in their knees.

What America did to a senior Indian Diplomat in New York is a prelude of things to come if Modi becomes Prime Minister. America will stop at nothing to punish those who shake the edifice of American World Order.

So why do they all fear and hate Modi so much?

1. While post-Godhra Gujarat riots of 2002 makes for designer fig-leaf, we must look elsewhere for the real reason to dislike Modi. Modi made no bones about the fact that he was an RSS pracharak; but unlike the standard RSS pracharak he chose the challenging arena of electoral politics to serve the Hindu nation; Modi chose to be the in-your-face tea-vendor turned RSS pracharak-turned-Chief Minister of Gujarat and is now threatening to be the next in-your-face RSS pracharak-turned Prime Minister in 2014, instead of choosing to be a self-effacing sharirik pramukh or bauddhik pramukh in Nagpur.

The fear consuming the US State Department, USCIRF, Sonia Gandhi, Teesta Setalvad and all political mercenaries is understandable. Their worst nightmare is now reality – the hitherto in potentia RSS-in-politics has materialized in the form of Narendra Modi. Vajpayee and Advani were at best notional Hindus and notional RSS swayamsevaks.

Just as motivated propaganda by renegade Hindus and the Muslim League projected Gandhi as the ideal Hindu leading an “accommodative” INC in contrast to a determined Jinnah leading the avowedly Islamic Muslim League, motivated politics of minority-ism exemplified by the three Yadavs – Sharad, Lalu and Mulayam - projects Vajpayee, in contrast to Narendra Modi, as the ideal Hindu who led an “accommodative” BJP. Modi, until he is tamed and pacified by America to say otherwise or acts to the detriment of Hindu interests, is still looked upon by his admirers and adversaries alike, as RSS pracharak in active politics

2. The RSS is feared and therefore disliked because the RSS makes no bones about India being a Hindu nation and the RSS being a Hindu nationalist organization; and therefore antithetic to Gandhi’s and Congress’ fantasies about the face and shape of post 1947 India. Gandhi rejected the notion that Ramrajya was Hindu nation administered by Hindu state. Gandhi, in keeping with his bible selling years in South Africa and his monotheist approach to Hinduism, to the USCIRF’s delight, equated Ramrajya with the Muslim Khudai Rajand the Christian Kingdom of God. Modi’s enemies are clinging desperately to Gandhi’s fantasies hoping that in time they will break Modi and the RSS like the British government broke the backbone of the Nationalist faction of the INC which split in Surat in December 1907 over the issue of who should be elected President.

Let no one commit the mistake of thinking that Ramrajya means a rule of the Hindus. My Rama is another name for Khuda or God. I want Khudai Raj which is the same thing as the Kingdom of God on earth. The rule of the first four caliphs was somewhat comparable to it. (Speech at a prayer meeting, Haimchar, February 26, 1947, CWMG Vol. 94, page 76 and Radha Rajan, Eclipse of the Hindu Nation: Gandhi and his Freedom Struggle Chapter 7, Unraveling the Mahatma, page 460)

Gandhi did not stop with his queer interpretation of Hindu scriptures and itihaasa; he had to diminish and belittle everything Hindu – Hindu temples, Hindu sanyasis, Hindu customs and traditions and critically during the 1940s decade, Hindu rulers, kings and princes, to implement the colonial agenda of seeking to find the holy grail of Hindu-Muslim unity; Gandhi was pre-occupied with this delusory unity until 1947 when Gandhi lost nothing but the Hindu nation lost territory.

Thousands of people doubtless look upon Rama and Krishna as historical figures and literally believe that God came down in person on earth in the form of Rama the son of Dasaratha, and that by worshipping him one can attain salvation. History, imagination and truth have got so inextricably mixed up, it is next to impossible to disentangle them. I have accepted all the names and forms attributed to God as symbols denoting one formless omnipotent Rama. (Who is Rama, New Delhi, May 26, 1946, CWMG Vol. 91, pp 44-45)

Thinking of the historical Rama of Valmiki or Tulsidas, one was liable to have many doubts as for instance why Rama banished Sita and so on. But when one thought of Ramanama in the abstract forgetting who Rama was and what he did, Rama at once became omnipresent and omnipotent God, above doubt and criticism. (CWMG, Vol. 89, pp 298-99; Eclipse of the Hindu Nation, page 467 footnote 61)

Such was Gandhi’s standing among people inside and outside the INC he could pass off drivel as high wisdom. In a letter to Jehangir Patel at Sevagram on August 8, 1946, Gandhi presents his own comical description ofRamanama thus –

Remember that Ramanama is the unfailing remedy for eradicating malaria. Having become a trustee of a nature-cure institution, you have got to appreciate this thing. And Ramanama is the same as Ahurmazda. (CWMG vol. 91, page 430, Eclipse of the Hindu Nation, page 448, footnote 31)

Gandhi had an equally bizarre and un-Hindu interpretation of the Bhagwad Gita. His views on the Bhagwad Gita in 1919 came at a time when Tilak during his six years internment in the Mandalay prison penned hisSrimad Bhagwad Gita Rahasya, a handbook on karmayoga. Tilak’s scholarly commentary on the Bhagwad Gita is also known as Karmayoga sastra. Gandhi returned to India in a hurry in 1915 because he had to occupy the position as thinker and leader of the INC – a position that empire loyalist Gokhale, aging and now quite ill, kept in readiness for him after the British had removed first Aurobindo, next Tilak and then Savarkar from public life.

Gandhi was brought back from South Africa to re-direct the INC and the Hindus of the country away from armed resistance to British rule; Gandhi was tasked with dousing the fire of political freedom in the hearts of people. He had to give the INC a new direction and he had to make ordinary Hindus follow him in that direction. To do that Gandhi had to diminish Tilak and his fiery, Hindu nationalist writings.

There was little doubt that Tilak, through Karmayoga Sastra was renewing the call to action – to continue with the freedom struggle that was interrupted with his arrest and with Aurobindo choosing spirituality over political kurukshetra. Gandhi had to debunk Tilak’s bhashya and give the Sri Bhagwad Gita his own interpretation which every ordinary Hindu on the street knew was war between the forces of dharma and adharma on a real battlefield. This was not a fictional story about intra-family dispute or feud. The essence of Srikrshna’s political discourse to Arjuna on the battlefield was that adharma had to be ended even if it was embodied in relatives and family – that was the primary kshatriya dharma. And yet this is what the Mahatma had to say about the Bhagwad Gita:

I shall now endeavor to consider in all humility a doubt raised by some Hindu friends regarding the meaning of the Bhagwad Gita. They say that in the Bhagwad Gita Srikrishna has encouraged Arjuna to slay his relations and they therefore argue that there is warrant in this work for violence and that there is no satyagraha in it. Now the Bhagwad Gita is not a historical work, it is a great religious book, summing up the teaching of all religions. The poet has seized the occasion of the war between the Pandavas and the Kauravas on the field of Kurukshetra for drawing attention to the war going on in our bodies between the forces of good (Pandavas) and the forces of evil (Kauravas).

To confuse the description of this universally acknowledged spiritual war with momentary world strife is to call holy unholy. We who are saturated with the teachings of the Bhagwad Gita but who do not pretend to any special spiritual qualifications, do not draw out sword against our relations whenever they perpetuate injustice but we win them over by our affection for them.

That encouragement for violence can be deduced from the Bhagwad Gita demonstrates the deadliness of kaliyuga. I have found nothing but love in every page of the Gita and I hope and pray that everyone will have similar experience on Sunday. (Excerpts from True meaning of Bhagwad Gita’s teachings, May 8, 1918, CWMG Vol. 17, pp 25-26)

This gibberish pronounced with élan was not Gandhi of the1890s decade in South Africa while under the thrall of Jesus Christ and European Christian Missionaries; this was the Mahatma, the anointed leader of the INC in 1919 and later in 1946-47. Ten years later, in 1929 Gandhi would write his own commentary on the Bhagwad Gita - Anasakthiyoga (as always Gandhi usurped and used names and concepts previously coined and elaborated upon by other thinkers whom he had set out to debunk and dethrone). Gandhi called his commentary ‘yoga’ because Tilak’s commentary on the Gita was called ‘karmayoga sastra’. And in keeping with his Abrahamic mindset he also called it The Gospel of selfless action.

Gandhi’s intent behind writing his own ‘yoga’ was almost childishly simple. If Tilak made his commentary on the Sri Bhagwad Gita a treatise on karmayoga, calling upon Indians to act decisively and forcefully to end political enslavement, then Gandhi fulfilling the objective of why empire loyalists handed over the INC to him on a platter, had to interpret the same Bhagwad Gita to be anasaktiyoga enjoining passivity, endless self-suffering, invoking what Gandhi called ‘soul force’ inside them and experiencing ‘love force’ – any force other than real force.

Gandhi wanted people to do charkha, temple entry, Hindu-Muslim unity, promote Hindi and get their sons and daughters to marry Harijans without any expectation of political freedom. And that is why he called his commentary a gospel of selfless action - anasaktiyoga. Gandhi stood Srikrshna’s exhortation to Arjuna on the battle field in Kurukshetra, on its head.

He twisted and tortured the Hindu understanding of ahimsa, of passive resistance, into a grotesque political principle which could not deal with the Muslim League’s demand for Hindu territory.

Hindus should not harbor anger in their hearts against Muslims even if the latter wanted to destroy them. Even if the Muslims want to kill us all we should face death bravely. If they established their rule after killing Hindus we would be ushering in a new world by sacrificing our lives. None should fear death. Birth and death are inevitable for every human being. Why should we then rejoice or grieve? If we die with a smile we shall enter into a new life, we shall be ushering in a new India. (Prayer meeting, April 6, 1947, New Delhi, CWMG Vol. 94 page 249)

That nation is great which rests its head upon death as its pillow. Those who defy death are free from all fear. (Hind Swaraj, Chapter XVII, Passive Resistance, pp94-95)

Gandhi walked to the pinnacle of INC leadership immediately after his return to India in 1915. He was placed there for two reasons –

· To replace Tilak as leader of the masses and to replace Aurobindo as thinker who galvanized the masses

· To disarm and dis-empower the majority Hindu populace inside the INC and outside so that they would never be in a position to - (a) resist either the British Imperial government which was not going to give up India in a hurry and (b) to be so weak as to be unable to defend the territory of the nation when the British Imperial government and the Muslim League made vivisection a package deal with transfer of power

Gandhi, notwithstanding the narration in treacherous writing of distorted and even false history, did exactly that. He declared that the Congress would not forcefully resist the British or the Muslims. For a man who did not allow any other Hindu political voice other than his own in the country during three decades of his farcical freedom struggle, Gandhi continued to sell the lemon that Muslims should believe in the idea of his India and have faith in Gandhi’s “Indian-ness”. Hindus of the country had no other vehicle except the INC and when Gandhi weakened the INC he actually weakened the Hindus and rendered the Hindu voice powerless to be heard.

The greatest coercion is British coercion. And the Congress is impatient to get out of that coercion. My hope in desiring a Constituent Assembly is that whether the Muslims are represented by the Muslim League mentality or any other, the representatives when they are face to face with the reality will not think of cutting up India according to religion but will regard India as an indivisible whole and discover a national, that is, Indian solution of even especially Muslim questions.

But if the hope is frustrated, the Congress cannot forcibly resist the express will of the Muslims of India. Needless to say Congress can never seek the assistance of British forces to resist the vivisection. It is the Muslims who will impose their will by force singly or with British assistance on an unresisting India.

If I can carry the Congress with me, I would not put the Muslims to the trouble of using force. I would be ruled by them for it would still be Indian rule. In other words the Congress will have only a non-violent approach to every question and difficulty arising. (Question Box, Ramgarh, March 17, 1940, CWMG Vol. 78, page 66)

The greatest coercion was not British coercion, but even intelligent leaders like Rajaji and Patel who had their own doubts about Gandhi’s political competence remained silent all through their years with Gandhi. Muslim coercion was worse because it was coercion from within the country and also because it had recourse to jihad. This was Gandhi’s political principle in essence and this was in 1940. Gandhi “hoped” that Muslims will discover a “national, that is, Indian solution” to Muslim issues. What kind of “Indian” and what kind of “national” Gandhi did not specify. He did not have to. The only India that remained a viable force which was not Muslim was Hindu. But then Gandhi had already made it clear that the Congress was not a Hindu organization. If the Congress was not a Hindu organization and Gandhi wanted an “Indian” solution to the Muslim question which was not Islamic separatist and secessionist, which “Indian” solution did he have in mind except the solution of the weak, disarmed and passive Hindu nation?

It was but a small step for Indian polity from Gandhi’s non-Hindu “Indian” to Nehru’s anti-Hindu “Indian”.

Absolutely brilliant,Ms.Radha Rajan you have unmasked the internal subversion of the Indian polity to de Hinduise the Sanskrit Hindu nation to suit the agenda of the balkanisation by the Abhramic forces.

MAHESH KAULDecember 24, 2013

Report Abuse

coward hindus gullible hindus divided hindus will vanish by 2025 if congress remains in power

dabangg hinduDecember 24, 2013

Report Abuse

As always Radha Rajan's articulation of true events is nothing short of brilliant! Her understanding of the gradual metamorphosis of 1200 years of India's struggle for freedom into gradual dilution to make way for the safe breaking of an empire(British) in disarray post WW2 to facilitate its anchor hold in the new world empire is refreshing. Looking forward to parts II & III and maybe even IV.

Rahul BanerjiDecember 24, 2013

Report Abuse

Dear RR,

The political dis-empowerment of the people you term as "HIndus" has started with destruction of villages and tribal lands, and imposition of westernised urbanisation over these traditional homelands..

74 acharya thirumaligais of sri-vasihnavam are all in ruins.. so many adhi saiva mutts are in ruins.. the occupation of all jathis had been almost destroyed and people are now made to work as corporate slaves.. the local economy has been virtually destroyed..

The collective ownership of the land & region in traditional society is dismantled and handed over to few corporates, and rest of the people converted in to economic slaves to for generations to these corporate..

Yet none of the hindu intellectuals ever care about these? why?

Has any so called "Hindu" intellectual ever fought for the rights of tribals? or has any so called "Hindu" ever argued for protection of environment?

Claude Alvares has written a detailed article on how more than 1 lakh native crop varieties had been destroyed in our land.. this article was published in this vijayvaani article..http://www.vijayvaani.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?aid=2137

How many so called "Hindu" intellectuals ever cared for this?

Narendra Modi has destroyed all native cotton varieties by allowing Bt-Cotton through out gujarat.. did any "Hindu" intellectual ever cared for?

What is this BLOODY Hindu Identity you are longing for, when every native institutions and native fauna and flora has been systematically destroyed?

On the other hand, the communists are fighting for environmental protection , rights of tribals, protection of native seeds, organic farming and many other things.. all these should have been a dharmic fight for us, but YET NONE of the Hindu organisation or Hindu Intellectual ever took these issues..

Will Modi who demolished 400 temples in ahmedabad to expland his dream westernised city, ever revive all these traditional institutions? I dont think so.. the ROT lies deep within Hindu intellectuals and HIndutva organisations..

senthilDecember 24, 2013

Report Abuse

It is well known that Nehru did his best to implicate Savarkar in the Gandhi Murder case. That shows how much Nehru's mind was filled with the base and lowly emotion of hatred towards the Hindus. Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, Mani Shankar Aiyar, Digvijay Singh et al have inherited it from Nehru, they all leave no stone unturned in Muslim Appeasement.

BaluDecember 24, 2013

Report Abuse

Mr Senthil, what have you done to save your precious tribes and villages instead of wasting time (mostly) being an irritant in this forum, like Mr observer?As usual another great article by Radha Ji

RamaDecember 24, 2013

Report Abuse

Dear Senthil,

1. You are missing the differentiation between several spheres of 'Hindu' activity. I do not think Hindu movements are missing the difference, you seem to be. Don't mix up external fight with internal.

2. The institutions that are suffering, can only be strengthened if you can revive a strong Hindu leadership - there is no point in complaining that the emerging leadership is not working to that end. That expectation is itself misplaced - the faster a leadership emerges, the faster you can stem the weakening of institutions.

DwadasakshaDecember 24, 2013

Report Abuse

@Rama,

/** Mr Senthil, what have you done to save your precious tribes and villages instead of wasting time (mostly) being an irritant in this forum, like Mr observer?**/

what are you expecting me to do when my village has been destroyed by the indian govt, and all the traditional institutions dismantled.. i am pointing that YOU Urban indians are the living in the spoils of destruction of the traditional bharath..

The Hindu nation that radha rajan here writes about is about the Metro Indian State, with a Capitalistic Economy and with Westernised Urban Center.. It doesnt represent the traditional bharath NOR the tribal bharath..

For past 50 years, the traditional occupation of all jathis were collapsing one by one and the urban hindu intellectuals never felt "economy is in distress"..

but when the UPA had screwed their urban capitalistic economy, all of them (right from Prof. Vaidyanathan to gurumurthy to MR Venkatest) are shouting now..

When the agriculture was colonised by the western corporations, there was no shout..

When the finance minister said "We have to move people out of villages and agriculture", there was NO shout..

senthilDecember 24, 2013

Report Abuse

@dwadasaksha,

/** 1. You are missing the differentiation between several spheres of 'Hindu' activity. I do not think Hindu movements are missing the difference, you seem to be. Don't mix up external fight with internal.**/

You are seeing ONLY christianity and islam as the external enemies.. whereas there are more dangerous external / internal enemies that are NOT even considered by the hindu intellectuals.. the Monsanto, the mining companies, the big corporates , the FORD foundation, etc..

So first realise who the enemy are..

/** 2. The institutions that are suffering, can only be strengthened if you can revive a strong Hindu leadership - there is no point in complaining that the emerging leadership is not working to that end. That expectation is itself misplaced - the faster a leadership emerges, the faster you can stem the weakening of institutions.**/

pls show me what native institutions that the leadership you are supporting had revived in gujarat? Modi is as much an atheists / agnostics as savarkar..

Also why do you expect a Strong leader to come and do the work that you can do in your own circle?

I had pointed out collapse the Acharya Thirumaligais of Iyengars, to which RR belongs to.. did she ever care about that? Do you need some strong leader even to revive these?

the problem is the obsession with this Hindu Identity.. which is blinding us from the real problems we are facing..

The Hindu Religion is being moulded along budhist lines, where Unmarried Sanyasins are considered as Spiritual heads, whereas married gurus of various mutts are NOT respected and ignored..

senthilDecember 24, 2013

Report Abuse

"You are seeing ONLY christianity and islam as the external enemies"

No, neither am I nor the movements see these as the only external enemies. The entire range of Indic vs western articulation if you follow, stratifies the problem into different aspects. Only the political aspect talks of abrahamist-commie kind of problem. The cultural aspect talks about basic worldview differences, the need for asserting the methods dharma based societies, the articulation against not just corporate but the whole range of western thinking - an eco system within which Hindu culture cannot survive. On the contrary I am saying that such areas are, in spite of being pointed out by learned Hindus, not finding traction among common folks - which is where the work needs to be. That cannot be the fault of a movement which is working in a different area!

"pls show me what native institutions that the leadership you are supporting had revived in gujarat"

Please re-read my point - I did not assert Modi is strengthening native institutions or that he is a permanent solution. On the other hand the survival of Hindu movements and emergence of an assertive Hindu view of life cannot happen without such leadership given the current situation.

"Also why do you expect a Strong leader to come and do the work that you can do in your own circle?"

No, that is not merely work "within circle" - the institutions are targeted not by forces within circle but with a full backing of anti-Hindu forces all over. And strengthening them is impossible without the emergence of leadership. Modi can be an atheist, so could be Savarkar - but he knows what it means to strengthen a society from leadership aspect to allow a revival. Again as I said, critique of their activity can be done in the area they are working - not an area they are not working.

"the problem is the obsession with this Hindu Identity."

Again, stratification. At one level it is indispensable. At one level it is irrelevant. Why mix them?

"The Hindu Religion is being moulded along budhist lines, where Unmarried Sanyasins are considered as Spiritual heads, whereas married gurus of various mutts are NOT respected and ignored"

They are being targeted too. The perception of religion as the domain of sanyasa is something Hindus need to fight out on the religious front - how is it related to Hindutva articulation? Respect for orthodoxy is something Hindus have to understand - Hindutva is irrelevant in that sphere. So to say, the Hindutva buy-in of orthodoxy or opposition to it is just as much as you see in Hindu society in general. Which is why I repeatedly say - different issues should be seen differently.

DwadasakshaDecember 24, 2013

Report Abuse

Smt.R.R,

I feel like.....you have become the sole voice among the Hindutva diaspora (after the demise of respected Malarmannan MahaSaya) to articulate the negative influence of Mahatma Gandhi.

I had tremendous regard for his Rama Bhakti. Alas! this write up had torn off that. But saguna or nirguna - rama is rama. Sant Kabir visualised Rama as nirguna.

That apart, When the Gandhians and even HIndutvavadins tomtoms that Gandhiji is the whole and sole tekkedhar of Hindu diaspora, that shall be ruthlessly and honestly handled. And you are the articulative voice of that ruthless handling.

\\ He twisted and tortured the Hindu understanding of ahimsa, of passive resistance, into a grotesque political principle which could not deal with the Muslim League’s demand for Hindu territory. \\

Every word of the above sentence is a jem. I was thinking of penning an article in tamizh as to how ahimsa of Hindu saints yielded results in the past. This is a wonderful quote to show how the wonderful concept of hindus, *ahimsa* was rendered meaningless by Gandhiji

And yes this quotable quote too :

\\\ Hindus should not harbor anger in their hearts against Muslims even if the latter wanted to destroy them. Even if the Muslims want to kill us all we should face death bravely. If they established their rule after killing Hindus we would be ushering in a new world by sacrificing our lives. None should fear death. Birth and death are inevitable for every human being. Why should we then rejoice or grieve? If we die with a smile we shall enter into a new life, we shall be ushering in a new India. (Prayer meeting, April 6, 1947, New Delhi, CWMG Vol. 94 page 249) \\\\

The political Gandhi was a curse on Hindusthan.

krishnakumarDecember 24, 2013

Report Abuse

This article shows the extent to which Radha Rajan has lost touch with reality. Gandhi is recognized by the vast majority of Hindus as a Mahatma. The view articulated here is that of the British. As in the colonial era, some Indians continue to be easily bribed.

bhaskar menonDecember 24, 2013

Report Abuse

Mr. Menon does not speak for me, or for the majority of Hindus either.

ADecember 24, 2013

Report Abuse

@dwadasaksha,

you are only writing your own views.. you are assuming that the hindu organisations are doing as you are imagining.. at the ground level its NOT..

No hindu organisation or Hindu intellectual ever raised their voice against plundering of tribal lands by big mining companies.. it is BJP which signs MoU with big corporates to plunder forests.. tribals is just an example i am mentioning..

The role of Hindu organisations are NIL in environmental protection, protection of native institutions, protection of native fauna & flora..

/** Please re-read my point - I did not assert Modi is strengthening native institutions or that he is a permanent solution. On the other hand the survival of Hindu movements and emergence of an assertive Hindu view of life cannot happen without such leadership given the current situation.**/

there is no such thing called Hindu View of life.. we are running behind illusions..

We need to protect our native institutions and native political & economic systems.. do you know what our native systems are?

When Modi does not gaurantee protection of native institutions, then what is the use in supporting him..

shelley kesley, the author of above article is ONE of the colunists here in vijayvaani.. so dont reject her article..

/** No, that is not merely work "within circle" - the institutions are targeted not by forces within circle but with a full backing of anti-Hindu forces all over. And strengthening them is impossible without the emergence of leadership**/

Can you spell out which FORCE outside caused the collapse of Acharya Thirumaligai here?? pls realise that you have NOT figured out who the enemy is, and how they are causing the damage..

secondly, when a native institution collapses, we have to work within the circle to save and revive it.. but you are living in apparent fear of enemy..

/** The perception of religion as the domain of sanyasa is something Hindus need to fight out on the religious front - how is it related to Hindutva articulation? Respect for orthodoxy is something Hindus have to understand - Hindutva is irrelevant in that sphere.**/

It is Hindutva Organisation which are establishing the maya that ONLY sanaysis are Spiritual gurus..

pls come out of the "Hindus need to fight" kind of argument.. these are mis-leading statements.. instead spell out who are hindus you want to fight, what/who exactly they shud fight, and how?

senthilDecember 24, 2013

Report Abuse

There is ,a lot of hatred and advocated violence in this crude harangue. Who will In reality articulate that sectarian and religious violence and blood-conflicts at the street level? Neither the author nor the few who 'compliment' her. Therein lies the hypocrisy of these exhorters of these views. So latch on to someone like Modi to implement the violent part.

It is a futile desire. Politics and responsibility change people. So will they Modi if he ever becomes the head of government of this great country, my country. Thank God this country is not an RR version of some Islamist theocracy.

In reality the staunch supporters of violent hatred here are cowards who hide behind the computer keyboard, safe in their distance, or smug in their anonymity.

vargheseDecember 24, 2013

Report Abuse

@varghese,

This country does NOT belong to you.. it belongs to the native people of this land.. You are a syrian christian, and you came here as refugees.. You mind your own business and NEED not define what this country should be or should NOT be..

senthilDecember 25, 2013

Report Abuse

@Senthil, that's just like saying this country does not belong to you (Senthil). You can feel terribly indignant and write a long essay to prove the opposite, but still I could make that senthil-like statement at the end of it, just like you did. Pointless.

vargheseDecember 25, 2013

Report Abuse

@Senthil,

"you are only writing your own views.. you are assuming that the hindu organisations are doing as you are imagining"

Or is it possible that you are missing what Hindutva is, and its context of discourse? From most of what you are saying, that seems not just possible but even probable.

"The role of Hindu organisations are NIL in environmental protection, protection of native institutions, protection of native fauna & flora.."

Is that the purpose professed by these organizations? On what imaginary purpose are you evaluating Hindu movements or organizations?

As a factual counter, who is opposing thorium loot, who is running vanavasi kalyana, who is running ekal schools, who is running movements for devalaya parirakshana?

"there is no such thing called Hindu View of life.. we are running behind illusions.."

Well there is, very much. I assumed you are conversant with Voice Of India literature, since you are commenting on this site. "Is there a Hindu view of life" is a topic VOI dealt with. Besides, see the series "Orient and Occident" on CRI. See Rajiv Malhotra. If there is no Hindu view of life, what do your institutions symbolize? They have no substratum of a common understanding of dharma? To protect native institutions one needs to understand what their essence is.

"shelley kesley, the author of above article is ONE of the colunists here in vijayvaani.. so dont reject her article."

While I do not want to judge the author, this is another mixup of topics.

"Can you spell out which FORCE outside caused the collapse of Acharya Thirumaligai here"

It does not matter, and it doesnt work that way. To strengthen an institution you need to create some respectability for it in public discourse. It is the loss of respect that takes people away from institutions or organizations. And that respect is only partly because of sustaining commitment, majority of it is propaganda machine. Are you missing of the poison in public discourse or not seeing the machinations in it? To strengthen institutions you need to create a situation where the state looks at you with positive outlook - not treat you second grade. How exactly are you going to fight it?

"It is Hindutva Organisation which are establishing the maya that ONLY sanaysis are Spiritual gurus"

This as I mentioned earlier, is an entirely different phenomenon and has nothing to do with Hindutva or its articulation.

DwadasakshaDecember 25, 2013

Report Abuse

@Senthil,

Having gone over the greatgameindia blog you mentioned - I do not get any positive sense from it. There are a few pretending-to-be-patriotic articles based on published material. Then they attack the Hindu leaders one after other. (1) Preposterously equating Hindu 'extremist' with Abrahamic extremist when the former rises in defense against the genocide of the latter (2) Attacking real persons and organizations of Hindus while keeping mum on the real threats and ongoing genocide (3) Keeping silent on the real criminals of India - Maino Mussolini whose regime is the root of evil the list goes on - the blog seeks credibility through those few pretending-to-be-patriotic articles by pushing its inherently traitorous agenda. This is my evaluation.

DwadasakshaDecember 25, 2013

Report Abuse

@varghese,

/** @Senthil, that's just like saying this country does not belong to you (Senthil). You can feel terribly indignant and write a long essay to prove the opposite, but still I could make that senthil-like statement at the end of it, just like you did. Pointless.**/

there is something called "legitimacy" which comes NOT by statement but by birth.. my statement are based on historic facts and NOT by any ideology or emotions..

You are a syrian christian and your ethnic root lies in syria and NOT here.. this is land of your migration.. you came here as refugee and we (the native of this land) gave you the space..

We cannot allow you to dictate us.. and its NOT ethical for you to do that..

senthilDecember 25, 2013

Report Abuse

@bhaskar menon

"Gandhi is recognized by the vast majority of Hindus as a Mahatma."His namesake Sonia Gandhi is ahead of him - she has a temple to her (in Andhra Pradesh).

Now, what was your point again?

@vargheseAnd what is your point? Everywhere, everywhere in the world that Christianity conquered, it destroyed indigenous beliefsystems. Can you name a single significant selfsustaining survival anywhere in the world? Have you forgotten the Pope of Rome's clarion call for "a harvest of souls" from India in the Third Millennium? Surely you know of Project Joshua - http://archive.tehelka.com/story_main.asp?filename=ts013004shashi.asp

Check out http://www.vigilonline.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=560&Itemid=103

BharatiDecember 25, 2013

Report Abuse

Brilliant piece, as always!

NaradaDecember 25, 2013

Report Abuse

Hindutva is in danger if Hindu won't unite polarised then no one dare save them from liquidatiHindu must assert them selvesMODI is a step to save hindutva

751001December 26, 2013

Report Abuse

@VargheseAs a Christian, you have absolutely no right to comment on anything or anybody in India which belongs to Hindus and Hindus alone.

@Bhaskar MenonGandhi is recognized by the vast majority of Hindus as a Mahatma only because today Hindus are a gullibe and naive lot. With time and knowledge imparted by patriots like Smt Radha Rajan, a day will surely come when Gandhi is recognized by all Hindus as a "Mahapaapi" (Great Sinner).

PSNDecember 26, 2013

Report Abuse

I have read Senthil's comments on this first article and his comments on other articles in the series and it seems to me that he is being very very sensible when he speaks of the danger of adhering to Hindutva (which may be called colonially-provoked neo-hinduism) while repudiating Hinduism's central theme of coexistence within the ENTIRE natural world.

Also, since the aim of this article is not simply to tell the truth about Gandhi but also to promote Modi (and his brand of neo-hinduism), I think that Senthil's concern -- the idea of Hindutva or neo-hinduism that will be practiced if Modi does becomes the PM -- is very legitimate.

Like Rajiv Malhotra is talking about the dangers that Hinduism faces from religions like Christianity that seek to "digest" it and how that can be countered by recourse to strategies like purvapaksha and traditional hindu narratives, so Senthil is talking of the dangers that Hinduism faces from neo-hinduism's apparent unconcern for the environment and the benefits that it confers on several peoples and tribes.He is also interested, it seems, in the FORM that this desired revival of Hinduism will take WITHIN the country -- will it be genuinely Hindu and genuinely Dharmic? Or will it, in its turn, trudge the much-trodden path of western-style modernization? For, if it does so thoughtlessly, it will be a complete repudiation of the independence of thought that Hindu Dharma encourages. And what difference then will it make if its political avatara is a Hindu Rashtra or not?I think, therefore, that Senthil's concerns are as genuine and important as Rajiv Malhotra's.

And, therefore, I don't think it really matters if Senthil is conflating two separate issues (like Dwadasakha thinks he's doing) or if he is not particularly conversant with the ideology of Hindutva -- so long as what he says is true.

And it is. For there's little doubt that India is trying its hardest to replicate western standards of 'growth' and 'prosperity' -- and that in doing so it is systematically destroying the environment (and those practices and traditions that are founded within it.) Now, Hinduism -- not Hindutva -- if understood as an ancient set of beliefs that originated when man lived in proximity with and adoration and wonder for nature would not condone such wanton destruction. (Neither does commonsense for that matter.) So, Senthil is quite right when he says that such activity qualifies as a-dhArmic.

Equally, I think he speaks the truth when he says that Hindu organizations, Hindu leaders and even Hindu intellectuals have by and large endorsed such destructive measures. It is also undeniable that Gujarat's state-of-the art roadways were built on land that was once forest. So why, in seeking to promote Modi, must one not take note of his zeal for modernization -- an end that is impossible without cruel measures against nature and its creatures, man included? Why cannot what Senthil says be taken as simply the truth (which it is) -- and countered if it does not stand up to scrutiny?

For Senthil may not be right about everything, but it seems to me that he speaks the language of a heritage he believes in with such sincerity that he seeks to subject even its most vocal well-wishers to an impartial agni-pareeksha. And then -- Satyameva Jayate.

MKAYesterday

Report Abuse

"And, therefore, I don't think it really matters if Senthil is conflating two separate issues (like Dwadasakha thinks he's doing) or if he is not particularly conversant with the ideology of Hindutva -- so long as what he says is true"

I find this logic amusing - how exactly is something ascertained to be "true" unless its context and relevance are validated? Is there an absolute truth like that in the relative world? Is perspective not about the frame and context?

I do not mean to say you are doing it, but this is exactly the line of deception and hetvAbhAsa that the xtians-commies employ in their anti-Hindu tirade.

DwadasakshaYesterday

Report Abuse

@Dwadasaksha,

Is not the truth absolute -- by its nature at least? You may be right that it is difficult to ascertain what exactly the truth is, but do you not agree that there *always is* a truth, whether historical or otherwise?

It seems to me that what the people who seek to whitewash history do is repudiate (repudiate, mind you, not refute) historical evidence by giving it a "context" of the sort you refer to -- for example, that the destruction of temples by Islamic rulers was simply collateral damage, inflicted as they plundered temples for their wealth. (Do you think that that is a fair use of "context"?)However, is it not the *truth*, founded on precedent and logic, that such depredation was wanton?

What I meant, therefore, when I said Senthil was telling the truth was just this: that it is true that the environment is not being protected with necessary care; that lives and livelihoods are being compromised by the lack of such care and swift industrial modernization; that such disregard for the environment can generally be called a-dhArmic; that Modi's commitment to economic development has and will continue to affect the environment; and that today's neo-hinduism (and its leaders) have by and large not accorded these issues the urgency and seriousness they deserve.

Do you agree?

MKA15 Hours ago

Report Abuse

@MKA,

"Is not the truth absolute -- by its nature at least"

No, because in the relative world the expression of truth is always relative. And such relative expression is what relates that truth to people. In itself, no truth is related to people unless its expression is made to relate :) Hence the need for context.

Here is the difference:

"destruction of temples by Islamic rulers"

vs

"have by and large not accorded these issues the urgency and seriousness they deserve"

now the first is by active commission, the second is by an alleged passive omission which was also being called a destruction. Due urgency and seriousness is itself relative, which is what I tried explaining him several times over but he thinks an absolute statement of deteriorating tradition is sufficient to establish his theory. No, it is not, unless one can demonstrate how the organizing and mobilizing Hindus (where no traditional Hindu capital is being invested) is a less urgent requirement than protection of tradition or environment (where there is already some human capital available). It is not sufficient, unless one can look at the bigger picture, present the needs of the society right from a top level leadership and then put things in perspective.

That a problem like deterioration and dereliction of traditions exists is something that does not even need debate - nor is there any disagreement at that. The disagreement is the way expectations are set and hence criticism is made.

Dwadasaksha8 Hours ago

Report Abuse

Prof. Lokesh Chandra in his briliant speech when he released my book Eclipse of the Hindu Nation made the critical diference between Truth and Fact. And the point that what expectation do we have and the resultant criticism is a good point.

Radha Rajan6 Hours ago

Report Abuse

@ Radha Rajan

How did Prof. Chandra explain the difference between truth and fact? (For example, I'd say that if something is a fact -- for instance, that the earth goes around the sun -- the *statement* of such fact becomes the truth.) However, I realize that there may ambiguity in disputes where the issue is less clear.

@ Dwadasaksha

Could you explain (by means of an example perhaps) what you mean when you speak of a "relative world" where "the expression of truth is always relative"? Why does truth lose its *unambiguity* if, like I said to Ms. Rajan, one thinks of it as the statement of fact?(Note: re the Truth, I think I prefer the word 'unambiguous' over the 'absolute' I used last time. 'Absolute' made it sound too much like a conceptual ideal.)

By the way, I agree that the seriousness and urgency of a matter *is* relative -- and that presenting it as an exemple of truth was not so sound -- but I still think that that my other contentions are (both) fact and truth. [Something you seem to agree with.]

You say that only an evaluation of expectations can result in fair criticism. That's certainly true. You also agree that the environment and traditions related to it are in danger -- which is what I first defended as the truth. So, really, I don't know that there's anything to argue about :) -- except the relative seriousness of these issues.

Since you mention it, do you think the "mobilization" of Hindus as one people is what is most necessary at the moment? Do you see a way to accomplish it? What would you do if such a mobilization succeeded?

MKA2 Hours ago

Report Abuse

Prof. Lokesh Chandra made this distinction in the context of Gandhi making what ought to have been a personal approach to something into a universal viurtue which he imposed on the INC and by default on Hindus. Becoming more specific, Prof. Lokesh Chandra said a fact is an established phenomenon or trait or condition which is infleunced by the variables of time, place, context and the person experiencing the fact. This fact is subject to change or alteration or modification. But Truth is not subject to the influence of variables. And even this truth said Prof. Lokesh Chandra in the realm of atma gyana is finite because the intelligence which experiences this truth is finite. His whole exposition was breathtaking. He exposed the vacuity of Gandhi's so-called philosophy with razor sharp critique.

Radha Rajan1 Hour ago

Report Abuse

@MKA,

"what you mean when you speak of a "relative world" where "the expression of truth is always relative"?"

Consider 'sun rises from the east': true within planetary system. True or false outside of it?

To say 'your Hindutva is not protecting my traditions' is as good as talking of sunrise outside the planetary system.

"So, really, I don't know that there's anything to argue about :) -- except the relative seriousness of these issues"

Exactly. Which is what RR also tried explaining Senthil :)

"do you think the "mobilization" of Hindus as one people is what is most necessary at the moment?"

One of the most, definitely. We need to understand what is meant by mobilizing. A fine example would be Ayodhya movement. The number that actually went to Ayodhya is a hundred thousand, but the level of awareness it brought, the number of people who started looking at Hinduism or traditions or the attacks on Hinduism as a result of such movement is the real effect it achieved. All this IS mobilization. It is from such movement that leaders emerged, scholars emerged. The point is that protection of traditions or environment is not a one-pointed goal that we can work for. In many cases people who put in such sustained effort emerge from the inspiration or awareness brought in by a one-time movement. A party like BJP which was almost an outcast, could attract leadership sufficient to take it to government - through such movement. So for a pro-traditional leadership to emerge, for people to turn to traditions and to create a pro-tradition public discourse, we need such mobilization as a pre-requisite. Not just Ayodhya - Ayyappa, Ganesh procession there are several different kinds of such mobilizations attempted in past and present, which had their ripple effect in several different ways.